Spotify

How to link Apple Music or Spotify to TikTok to save the music you discover in the social network’s videos there

by

Let’s tell you how to link Apple Music or Spotify to TikTokand thus be able to save the music you find in the videos in your music library. When you do this, the service you choose will become the one TikTok uses by default. The operation is simple. Once you have linked them, when you are watching TikTok and a video with a song appears, an indicator will appear that tells you what the topic is. Then, by clicking on the name you can open it directly in your music streaming application. Link Apple Music or Spotify to TikTok The first thing you have to do is enter TikTok and click on the options button to open the side tab. When you do it, click on the option Settings and privacy to enter the social network settings. Once you are in the TikTok settings, go to the section Content and screen. in here, click on the section Music that will appear to you. Within the Music section, click on the option Link within the option of Add to music app. You will go to a screen where you will be able choose the default music app to add songs from TikTok. Here, you can click on one of them, the one you use. When you choose one of the options, you will go to the application or website of this music service, and you will be able to accept that you connect to TikTok and both services are linked. TikTok will be able to see data from your account and perform actions for you, such as adding songs. Add TikTok music to Spotify Once you have linked a streaming service, simply browse as normal. When there is a song in a TikTok video, you will see that there is an indicator of the topic it containsand you can click on it. You can also click on the round icon at the bottom right. When you click on the song nameyou will go to a screen where you can have your information, the publications that use it, and options to use it yourself or save it to favorites. Here, you will also have a button to add it to Spotify or Apple Musicdepending on which one you have chosen. This will add the song to your playlist of songs you like on Apple Music or Spotify, the one created when you “Like” any of the songs. In Xataka Basics | Alternatives to TikTok: the main social video networks to go to if you are thinking of changing

How to know if the music you listen to on Spotify or Apple Music is from a real artist or made by artificial intelligence

by

Let’s give you some clues about how to detect if the music you are listening to Is it by a real artist or is it made by artificial intelligence. We are going to focus on that music that is on streaming platforms like Spotify or Apple Music. The way to detect it is not by looking for things in the music itself, but looking at the artist who created the song. Music made by artificial intelligence does not stop flood streaming servicesand they are having enough trouble stopping it. Many times it is easy to detect, it is music without soul, but one way or another, they are there taking clicks and listens, and the money that should go to real musicians. Therefore, we are going to give you a list of things you should pay attention to to detect if what you hear is from a real musician or not. It is not that if one of these points is met it is music made by AI, but that the more of these red flags it raises, the more it will be pointed in that direction. Listen carefully to the music If you are going to check if an artist is real or if they are songs made by AI, it is possibly because you are noticing something strange in the music. Here, you will be able to notice it especially depending on the musical genre you listen to. This is because elements such as excessively clean voices or lack of natural breathing can be the first indication, although in some commercial genres you will also find this due to excess production. Ultimately, the music will sound artificial, soulless. The phrases in the case of singing will sound mechanical and without any emotion, and the lyrics will also be quite bad. Pay attention to how the instruments sound musicals, because if they sound too compact, like a mush where you can’t distinguish each one of them and their clean sound, it could also be due to AI… or again, due to bad production. Biography and photo of the artist If music has left you suspicious, play then Click on the artist’s name to enter their profile within the streaming platform. The first thing that may make you suspicious is that there is no photo of the artist or the bandand instead there is some landscape or generic image. The fact that the photo of the band is not a photo of the musicians or the soloist is something that should make us suspicious. In the case of a photo of people appearing, you can check if it is made by AI, if it looks unnatural or if there is an excess of processing of the image, but normally AI artists do not usually risk this. It is also worth checking the biography of the artist or band. Look out for some suspicious signs, like the fact that it doesn’t include names of the members, where they are from, or those biographical data that usually give you a little more context about the artists. Instead, “musicians” made by AI will give ambiguous descriptions, and there will be times when in a fit of honesty they will directly say that it is music made by artificial intelligence. Discography and volume of releases The next step would be to look at your albums. If you see that their first releases have been around for many years, this would indicate that they are a normal band, because the AI ​​that generates music has only been able to resemble real music for a couple of years or three. If the releases they have are all new, it could also be because they are a new artist. Then look at the volume of the pitches. Human musicians, those of flesh and blood, can take from one to five or six years to release each new record. If you see that the artist has 2 or 5 full albums released in two monthsthen this should set off all the alarms. It’s AI. And by this we mean albums, not singles or individual songs. you should also pay attention to how the music sounds. If all the songs seem too samey you should also be suspicious, and if the track titles are too generic and simple too. Real artists are not a donut factorythey are not going to release an album every two weeks or every two months, because this requires a process of composition, recording, mastering, and creation of physical formats. Nobody is going to release 40 songs to you in a year if they don’t cheat. Find information about the artist and his concerts If your suspicions are still there, then comes the next level, that of looking for information about these artists on other pages. The first thing could be search for photos or videos of live concerts on YouTube, Facebook or Instagram. Also look for news on music websites. You can also search for concert dates, if they appear at festivals, if they are mentioned on networks. Come on, there must be proof that they are artists that someone has seen or known, because the normal thing is that the objective of musicians is to play live, not simply record albums. You can also search for his name on specialized platforms. Discogs is the largest database of albums and music releases on the Internet, it is a good place to start, in addition to Wikipedia or All Music. Also look for specialized media, such as Metal Archives for rock and heavy metal, and those for other musical genres. In the end, If it seems as if the artist does not exist because there are no photos or any reference outside of streaming platforms… possibly because they don’t exist. There will be artists who use AI In short, if everything we have told you above points in one direction, you will have already located a fake musician who is really an AI algorithm. … Read more

Spotify has had to remove 75 million songs made with AI. Bandcamp has decided not to have that problem

by

The Bandcamp music streaming and sales platform has announced that will completely ban music generated “in whole or in substantial part” by artificial intelligence, becoming the first major music distribution service to establish such a restrictive barrier against synthetic content. Bandcamp thus draws a very clear red line in the debate about where the use of creative tools ends and where total automation that dispenses with human authorship begins. What does the statement say? Bandcamp’s statement presents two fundamental prohibitions. On the one hand, any musical content generated entirely or substantially through artificial intelligence, a formulation that avoids defining exact percentages but establishes that there is a threshold regarding the weight of AI in the creative process. On the other hand, it extends the prohibition to the use of algorithmic tools to replicate styles or voices of real artists, connecting this restriction with the platform’s pre-existing policies against identity theft and intellectual property infringement. Citizen collaboration. The advertisement includes a complaint mechanism For users: users can report suspicious material using the platform’s reporting tools, which will be reviewed by a moderation team. The company explicitly reserves the right to remove music suspected of having synthetic origin, without the need for conclusive evidence, a clause that gives wide freedom to moderators but could also generate false positives. The company acknowledged that the policy may require updates as the generative AI landscape evolves, referring to how quickly these technologies are being developed. The conceptual debate. This decision is part of the debate about AI and creativity that is going through the world of culture: using algorithms as instruments as opposed to delegating the creative act to them. The United States Copyright Office established in January 2025 that work generated by AI can be registered when it “incorporates significant human authorship,” but that content produced solely through promptswithout additional creative intervention, falls into the public domain for lack of a recognizable author. Nuances and tools. And it is difficult to determine the limits. The spectrum ranges from musicians who use AI to clean up audio or get inspired by melodies to those who simply write text instructions and let the model generate entire tracks. There are conceptual artists who go to the opposite extreme of artificial intervention: composer Holly Herndon turned her voice into the project Holly+ into a “digital instrument” that is publicly accessible and that other musicians can play. The debate is endless: MIT Technology Review raised in April that tools like Suno and Udio produce “creators” who are not conventional musicians but “prompters“. The result is works that cannot be attributed to a composer or singer, dissolving the usual definitions of authorship. The flood. The figures reveal an exponential escalation in the appearance of music created with AI on platforms. Deezer spoke in November 2025 of more than 50,000 tracks completely generated by AI each day, 34% of its daily volume, and an increase of 400% compared to January, when the figure was 10,000 songs per day. A study by Deezer itself said that 97% of listeners do not know how to distinguish between human and synthetic music after a blind test for the participants in the study in which they were shown two tracks, one with AI and one real. The Spotify drama. While, Spotify revealed in September 2025 which had removed 75 million “spam tracks” in the previous twelve months, an amount that rivals the platform’s entire catalog of 100 million songs. The emblematic case of the fictional indie band The Velvet Sundown illustrates the dimension of the phenomenon: this group completely generated by AI It reached 1.5 million monthly listeners on Spotify during the summer of 2025 before its creators admitted its synthetic nature, under pressure from listeners. Follow the money. The case of Xania Monet is another side of the problem. This fully synthetic R&B artist generated over $42,800 in less than two months with over 17 million streams totals, which led to the signing of a multimillion-dollar record contract after a bidding war where a record company allegedly offered $3 million. At the same time, country was the first genre to be marked as a big loser in this war between real and synthetic artists: in December 2025, the number of country songs generated by AI outsold completely human jobs. There is a clear motive for these maneuvers: money. Tools like Suno and Udio produce for free and a user can generate hundreds of short tracks that can generate profits. Let’s multiply it exponentially: massive uploads to platforms, bot farms that generate songs and upload songs without rest, automation of payments… We are not looking for isolated successes, but to add millions of reproductions, against which a real artist cannot compete. Percentages. And that’s why Bandcamp and Spotify are so different. Bandcamp is a marketplace straight where artists charge an average of 82% of each sale, with the platform keeping 15% on digital items and 10% on physical items, with additional payment processing commissions of 4-7%. bandcamp has paid more than 1,640,000 million dollars directly to artists and labels since its founding in 2008, with 19 million transferred in 2025 alone thanks to “Bandcamp Fridays”, days in which the company completely waives its commission. This structure makes AI-generated music counterproductive for the platform: no one buys synthetic albums produced by AI. prompts. Spotify, meanwhile, operates on a subscription basis, distributing roughly two-thirds of its total revenue in royalties. The platform paid 10 billion dollars to the music industry in 2024but the average payment for stream ranges between 0.003 and 0.005 dollars. Besides,Spotify implemented a threshold of 1,000 annual streams in 2024 for a track to generate royalties. This structure creates perverse incentives to “cheat”: virtually free AI production, mass uploading of tracks, use of bot farms to inflate the number of views… The pay-per-play system stream It allows tiny fractions of a cent to turn into million-dollar amounts if there is enough volume. The reaction. The Bandcamp movement has some protection of its image, … Read more

Spotify killed the record and the industry pivoted to concerts. Netflix killed cinema and the industry was left with a “space crisis”

by

Never in history have we seen so many movies: the streaming It allows us to see several a week but, nevertheless, the movie theaters are empty. Literally emptier than ever in decades. We consume audiovisual content en masse, but not where we historically enjoyed it. Meanwhile, concerts have become the leisure alternative par excellence. Why do we pay hundreds of euros to go to a stadium with 50,000 other people, but not fifteen to see a blockbuster on the big screen? The answer lies in how we value physical space in the experience economy. Some figures. Let’s look at some box office figures: the summer of 2025, traditionally the most lucrative season in the industry, has been the most disastrous since 1981 adjusted for inflation. There is no dream of returning to pre-COVID figures: in October 2025 in the US, only 445 million dollars were raised, less than half of last October before the pandemicwhich exceeded one billion. The average viewer attended only 2.31 times to theaters in 2024, a drop of 33% compared to the 3.5 annual visits in 2019. In Spain, theThe 2025 data is equally dark: The total box office falls by 14% (almost 30 million less), and Spanish cinema itself declines by 2.5-3%. The author of this last study, Pau Brunet, expressly says that “the Hollywood fantasy is crumbling.” And the erosion is constant: Spain had more than 105 million viewers in 2019, which represents a loss of a third of its volume in five years: we are now at 71 million. Windows that don’t perform. The problem is so multifactorial that it is ridiculous to focus only on the drop in the box office to explain it. For example, we have the collapse of display windows: The pre-pandemic standard was 90-120 days in theaters, three or four weeks later in digital sales and then home formats and streaming. After the pandemic, these windows were reduced by more than 60%, and although they now vary depending on the studio, Universal and Warner leave a 45-day window for their most sought-after productions (it can be reduced to 17 days), with the exception of Disney, which operates them for 60 days. In any case, the rest of the windows have been shortened or disappeared, and it is common to watch a movie in streaming just a month and a half after its release in theaters. It is one of the main reasons why people have left the theaters: even blockbusters like ‘Wicked’ can be seen streaming just 40 days after their release in theaters. Even China. A few years ago, China was the market that seemed destined to save Hollywood accountsbut experienced its own collapse in 2024: the box office fell 23% to 42.5 billion yen ($5.8 billion), returning to figures from a decade ago. Attendance fell by more than 200 million viewers compared to ten years ago. One of the main reasons is the degradation of the theatrical experience: cinemas without air conditioning and without customer service staff beyond the bar, a characteristic that has been spreading to theaters around the world for years. The crisis has been going on for a long time. In reality, this fall does not have its roots in the streaming not even in the pandemic. The attendance of the American public had been falling since the sixtiesgoing from one visit per person every two or three months to just twice a year before the pandemic. The real price of admission (adjusted for inflation) has remained stable since the 1980s, but consumers have decided that they no longer want to go to theaters. The problem, as this Bain & Company study states The thing is that, for decades, the industry has placed all the emphasis of its production on pure content, but the films have ended up arriving home in a few weeks. Meanwhile, music has come to understand something fundamental: the value is not in the recorded content, but in the unique, unrepeatable event. The triumph of music. He Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour It closed in December 2024 after 149 concerts in 51 cities, ggenerating gross revenues of 2,077 million dollars. That is, more than the annual film box office receipts of entire countries (compare with the pyrrhic 71 million box office receipts in Spain in 2024). AND We’re not just talking about the concerts.: The average expense per attendee ranged between $1,300 and $1,500, including transportation, accommodation, merchandising and dinners. More than fans, they are tourists generating systemic economic impact. “Swiftonomics“has ceased to be a metaphor and has become a real analytical category in government economic reports. Beyond Taylor. Swift is not an anomaly. The global live music market generated $28.1 billion in 2023 and projections place it at $79.7 billion by 2030. That growth is equivalent to tripling the size of the market in seven years, while cinema struggles to recover the levels of a decade ago. What does live music have that cinema has lost? The term “funflation“: Consumers prioritize spending on memorable experiences even during periods of high inflation Festivals have capitalized on this logic: They sell identity, belonging and experiences that are impossible to replicate at home. Just the opposite of cinema: a film is exactly identical all over the world and once seen, the incentive to repeat it in theaters is minimal, especially knowing that it will be in streaming in 45 days. Reinvention is required. The cinema crisis is not a death sentence, but it is a demand for reinvention. Because the physical space of entertainment is not dying, it is being reformulated. The path that the music industry has followed by completely pivoting its business model with the disappearance of physical formats is the one that cinema has to follow. At the moment, theaters have not gotten the premium experiences right (sophisticated restoration, more comfortable rooms, improvements in image and sound quality), but that is because they still do not differentiate themselves enough from the domestic experience. Cinema needs its own Taylor … Read more

Spotify has suffered the largest music theft in history. One that confirms that most of their catalog is never heard

by

Anna’s Archive was already known by literature lovers, who turned to this repository to be able to access books of all kinds without having to pay for them. Now they want to achieve the same thing with music, and they have taken a colossal and disturbing step: stealing practically the entire Spotify catalog. What is Anna’s Archive. Anna’s Archive project appeared on the scene in late 2022, shortly after legal pressure managed to knock down the Z-Library platformone of the largest websites for downloading free books. The platform works as a metasearch engine that allows you to find books and then download them. Anna’s Archive does not host these files—which, according to the project, exempts it from legal responsibility—and links to different anonymous download providers, which is where users can obtain them. Until now the platform focused on books, but that has changed. The biggest music theft in history. In a post published on his blog official this weekend, those responsible for Anna’s Archive indicated that they have made “a backup copy” of Spotify that includes both metadata and music files. Not only that: it is indicated that they are distributing all this information through torrent files, and the total download takes up 300 TB of data “grouped by popularity.” 86 million songs. They call it the first music “preservation archive” in history and it has 86 million music files. Although that figure is only 37% of the songs in Spotify’s entire catalog, according to Anna’s Archive they account for 99.6% of listening on Spotify. And here there are two important things: on the one hand, music as such. And on the other hand, the metadata that surrounds that music, and that offers very interesting information about Spotify’s music catalog. The top 10,000 popularity. Thus, at Anna’s Archive they wanted to organize that archive based on “popularity”, a metric that they use in Spotify to order the songs that are listened to the most and how recent those plays are. Those responsible for Anna’s Archive have compiled a gigantic list with the 10,000 most popular songs according to this metric. Lady Gaga, Bad Bunny and Billie Eilish occupy the top three positions, for example. This graph reveals how song popularity demonstrates the long tail phenomenon. Only 62 songs exceed 90 points. Three out of four songs are not heard. By grouping songs by popularity, the metadata reveals and confirms the traditional long tail phenomenon. More than 70% of the songs in the Spotify catalog are barely listened to (less than 1,000 plays), and there are so many that are popular or that they had to cut the gigantic file (it would have been 700 TB) to end that representation of 99.6% of songs that have minimal popularity on Spotify. That does not mean that they are better or worse, be careful: it just means that they have been heard more or less on the platform. We all hear (more or less) the same thing. Most listens come to songs with popularity between 50 and 80, and here comes an expected figure: of the 86 million songs, only 210,000 exceed 50 popularity (0.1%). Or what is the same: almost everyone basically listens to a very small set of songs compared to the size of the catalog. How much is each song listened to? Those responsible for Anna’s Archive claim that it is possible to estimate the total number of views per song thanks to popularity. They gave the example of the first three: ‘Die with a smile’ (Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars), 3,075 million views ‘Birds of a feather’ (Billie Eilish): 3,137 million views ‘DtMF’ (Bad Bunny): 1,124 million views Between the three of them they accumulate as many listens as the songs that are between number 20 and number 100 million have. Once again, the long tail in action. Analysis everywhere. These metadata are very useful, and Anna’s Archive has produced a unique report in which they reveal conclusions based on the data collected. Thus, you can confirm how the most common length of songs is around 3:30 minutes, how there are numerous duplicates per song (licenses, versions, etc.), which ones are the most popular genres between artists or how most of the songs on Spotify are singles, and not part of an album. These metadata are a true treasure for market researchers. Downloading (for now) only in large torrents. At Anna’s Archive they have not published almost any of the torrents so far, but they have already indicated how they will offer those 300 TB. First, the metadata in a 200 GB file, which is already being shared by about 200 people. Then the music in various batches organized by popularity. Finally, some additional metadata and content like album art designs. Time will tell if those 86 million songs end up being available on some type of platform that links them to download individually. At Anna’s Archive that does not seem to be the intention, at least for now, and at the moment the metasearch engine focuses strictly on books. What Spotify says. As they point out in TorrentFreakthose responsible for Spotify have launched an investigation, and as a result have “identified and deactivated the accounts of malicious users who were participating in illegal scraping activities.” They have also implemented new measures to prevent these types of attacks and “are monitoring suspicious behavior.” Image | Sumeet B In Xataka | The chaos of streaming is causing a phenomenon that we thought was in recession: downloads are increasing

When Spotify launched its first Wrapped, it didn’t know what it was creating: a real monster

by

If companies have learned anything since the Internet has evolved into this strange algorithmic mass that sometimes escapes our control, it is that, if something creates a trend, it must be there. For a few days we can enjoy the latest Spotify Wrappedthe now classic annual review where we find data playfully designed to share on networks such as which artists we listen to the most on the platform or which songs have defined our year. And as it could not be otherwise, the networks are flooded with captures. So far everything is correct. But as happens with any content that becomes popular and people like it, alternatives arise. And that’s not bad. In fact, Spotify didn’t invent personalized annual reviews, but when we already see a pseudo-wrapped on platforms like WeTransfer (hey, good for them), the alarm bells are already ringing that perhaps we are slipping a little. And throughout these days I have found examples that are each more absurd. Spotify. Wrapped has become one of those excellent viral marketing strategies. Since its launch in 2016, Spotify has gotten millions of users to voluntarily share their listening data every December. The flood of screenshots that each user shares on social networks becomes a tool for creating FOMO that encourages another potential user to use Spotify, or even gives them reasons to stay on this platform. It has become more or less a cultural phenomenon, a tradition like Christmas itself. And of course, this has attracted other companies enough to want to replicate this effect at all costs. YouTube Recap Irresistible. As I said before, Spotify was not the first to make annual summaries, but it was the first to turn them into irresistibly shareable content. The key is in its design: very striking graphics, personalized statistics and a perfect format to share on your Instagram story. The hashtag #SpotifyWrapped becomes a global trending topic every year, generating organic advertising comparable to very few advertising campaigns. And the formula is repeated every year without few changes beyond the visual: take the data you already have about your users, wrap it in an attractive way and return it to share with other potential clients. PlayStation Wrap-Up A Wrapped for everything. Having an annual review of your platform or service has become mandatory for many companies, extending to all types of industries. In the field of entertainment and gaming, platforms such as YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, PlayStation, Xbox, nintendo, Steam either Twitchamong many others, offer their own summaries. Curious not to see anything official that resembles it on Netflix and other streaming platforms, beyond some third-party tools, such as kapwingwhich allow you to import your own viewing data to see a similar overview. Twitch Recap cforced asses. Where the trend becomes truly interesting is in sectors where, a priori, an annual summary does not make much sense (or seen another way, cases ahead of their time). To Lidl (yes, the supermarket) has its annual review, where it tells you what you have bought the most through its app or how many times you have gone shopping. Lidl’s move is even nice, but there are cases that play a fine line. WeTransfer could perfectly fit in here. As a file transfer service I have no complaints (maybe one or two), but I would never have expected that a platform of this kind would also think of joining this type of marketing initiatives. And if we talk about forced cases, Securitas Direct. As is. The platform tells you through its My Verisure app data such as the number of times you have accessed and things like that. I can’t help but imagine someone anxiously awaiting their annual review of their alarm service to find out how many times they have been broken into this year. Jokes aside, here is already an area in which having a wrapped looks out of place. But if anyone finds these statistics useful, nothing to say about it. Courtesy of Jose Jacas More examples that embrace fashion. Duolingo even overtook Spotify this year by launching your Year in Reviewrevealing learning statistics, streaks and the dreaded error counter. Trakt, a website where users register series and movies what do you see, too has its own summaryalthough to see it you have to upgrade to their payment plan, so I’ve never seen it. WeTransfer Recap Platforms like Uber either LinkedIn They have also joined the bandwagon with their own versions. Even the New York Times has launched its “Year in Games” for Wordle, Connections and other games, showing statistics such as the average attempts in Wordle or the most correct categories in Connections. Viral logics. If something starts to gain traction on the internet, all brands want to be there, even if the connection with their business is forced. It is the fear of being left out of the conversation. The same FOMO effect that these tools achieve, in some way, also generates FOMO around companies that seek to enter this trend in any way. These annual reviews are no longer just a data analysis tool, but a format that brands try to appropriate to gain visibility and engagement. It works because we are very heavy on sharing content and we generate the occasional unpopular opinion in the process, even if it is your supermarket purchases. This is how we operate on the Internet. I can’t wait to see the Wrapped from my electric company to learn more about my consumption peaks or my bank account to see what nonsense I waste my money on. In Xataka | How to share Spotify Wrapped 2025 on Instagram, WhatsApp or other apps

How to share Spotify Wrapped 2025 on Instagram, WhatsApp or other apps

by

Let’s tell you how to share your Spotify Wrapped data on social networks or any application. He Spotify Wrapped 2025 has already been released, and the best thing about this annual round of statistics is always sharing it and comparing it with your contacts and friends. That’s why we are going to tell you several ways you can do it. We will tell you how to share any slide, something quite simple but which option you may not have noticed. We will also tell you how to share the statistics page that appears at the end, and even the playlist. Remember that in addition to apps, you can also share all the statistics internally with Spotify contacts through its private messaging system. Share any slide from the Wrapped The Wrapped is made up of several slides. To share them, you have to wait for them to finish playing. These slides usually have animations, and nothing happens while they are running. But when they finish a button appears Share this story down at all. This button displays the sharing options of your mobile operating system. you should have shortcut to share it on Instagram Storiesbut also to send it on WhatsApp or share it in any other app. Besides, you will also see your Spotify contacts to send it as an internal message. You will also see an option Dischargewhich what it does is download the slide to your mobile memory so that you can share it manually through the medium or application you want. Share your Wrapped summary When you finish viewing all the stories in your Wrapped, you will see a final slide in the form of a summary. In it, you will be able to move it laterally to choose different color combinations, and when you have chosen one press the button Share. This will allow you to share it on social networks, messaging apps or download the slide to share it by hand wherever you want. In the section Wrapped from the Spotify app A category will also appear especially for you. In case you have not saved it while viewing the slides, here you will have the Wrapped playlistwith your most listened to songs of 2025. When you enter the playlist, you will only have to press the button Share that appears as with any other playlist. With it you can share the playlist with whoever you want in apps or internal messages, or even copy the link to paste it in other applications. In Xataka Basics | 53 third-party tools and apps to get the most out of Spotify with statistics, playlists and new features

More and more people are accusing Spotify of artificially inflating their listeners. There is no way to check the numbers.

by

The doubts about the listening figures that Spotify handles They have always been there, but they have increased in recent times, when the possibility has been put on the table that some of their most listened to artists are actually the result of bot farms. At the moment there is nothing firm on the table, but we do have something indisputable: between this and the artists fleeing in a pack Spotify is going through one of the biggest reputational crises in its history. The demand. In early November 2025, rapper RBX, Snoop Dogg’s cousin, filed a class-action lawsuit against Spotify in California that has opened an uncomfortable debate for the music industry. streaming. According to the court document, between January 2022 and September 2025 an unspecified but “substantial” amount of the almost 37 billion views accumulated by Drake on the platform they would have been generated by botsautomated accounts (who listen to Drake 23 hours a day, something implausible) and traffic from, for example, Türkiye, masked with a VPN. Drake is not to blame. The Canadian artist not listed as accused (the lawsuit points exclusively to Spotify), but it appears to be an indirect beneficiary of this ecosystem where supervision is, to put it mildly, very relaxed. What is relevant is not whether Drake knew about these anomalies or not, but rather an issue that, if revealed as true, would reach the level of structural embezzlement: transparency about listening on Spotify is practically zero. How Spotify (doesn’t) work. The main problem with Spotify’s system lies in the opacity that surrounds its systems to detect fraud. The company has never publicly explained the exact thresholds that trigger its alarms, nor the criteria that distinguish an organic spike in activity from artificial manipulation. This lack of transparency generates detailed situations in this article: while emerging artists see their income blocked by a few thousand reproductions considered suspicious, statistical anomalies of colossal dimensions can persist for years. A lot of fraud. An analysis held in France in 2023 estimated that between 1% and 3% of all streams in the country were fraudulent. If these percentages were extrapolated globally, the losses would exceed $510 million. But Beatdapp, a company specialized in detecting fraud in streaming, dramatically raised that estimate in 2024: at least 10% of all reproductions would be artificial, which implies annual losses of between 2,000 and 3,000 million dollars. Other cases. These demands are not born in a vacuum. During 2024 and 2025, several cases have confirmed that the manipulation of streams and opaque commercial influence are common problems at Spotify. For example, in 2025, the Turkish Competition Authority opened a formal investigation against Spotify for alleged anti-competitive practices. The trigger was allegations from several top Turkish artists that certain performers were getting disproportionate visibility in exchange for direct payments to Spotify editors, all combined with the use of bots to artificially inflate national chart positions. Spotify has launched an internal investigation in what is the first case of editorial corruption reported by relevant artists. On the other hand, in September 2024, a 52-year-old musician living in North Carolina was accused of artificial inflation of streams through AI. Specifically, up to $10 million in fraudulent royalties through hundreds of thousands of songs created with AI that it played with up to 10,000 bot accounts. Smith strategically dispersed the fake wiretaps among tens of thousands of topics to prevent any of them from accumulating suspicious numbers. Spotify admits the fraud operated for years undetected. Header | Amber on Flickr / Alexander Shatov in Unsplash

King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard removed all their songs from Spotify. Immediately afterwards some mysterious versions took their place

by

You can leave Spotify, but you don’t leave it completely until Spotify allows you to. King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard just found out the hard way: They left the platform in protest of the CEO’s investmentsbut there are still his songs inside. The terrifying thing about it: they are not the ones who composed or recorded them. We go, or not. King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard left Spotify in July 2025: it was a protest against Daniel Ek’s investments in military technology. Weeks later, however, they discovered that several of the group’s songs were still available on the platform. But they were not the originals, but rather instrumental versions that imitated the original songs, with the same artist name, identical titles and official covers. According to Platformer accountthese songs managed to accumulate more than 10 million views before being detected. The trick. Spotify presented these tracks as authentic. As a fan of the band tells Platformer, when playing ‘Deadstick’ from the album ‘Phantom Island’, what sounded was a simplified version, almost a cell phone ringtone, a kind of low-quality version. But without knowing the original song (and especially taking into account how fond of jokes and experimentation this unclassifiable and prolific band is) any listener could have confused it with the real song. The same thing happened with other songs on the album such as ‘Aerodynamic’ and ‘Grow Wings and Fly’. The article sparked a wave of protests that led Spotify to remove the content, confirming that it violated its anti-phishing policy. There are currently no songs from the group on the platform. It is not an isolated case. According to data from the company itself published in September 2025Spotify has removed 75 million tracks classified as spam over the last year. The consulting firm Luminate estimates that about 99,000 songs are uploaded daily to streaming services, often through distributors that do not verify the identity of the artist. The situation is accentuated on other platforms, in what seems to be a widespread problem with a clear trigger: the ease with which songs can be generated using AI. Deezer, for example, counted this same month which receives more than 50,000 tracks completely generated by artificial intelligence every day, 34% of all the content that reaches its servers. 70% of AI-generated music plays, he says, are unauthorized songs or songs that replace real artists. The Ghost of The Velvet Sundown. In June 2025, a band called The Velvet Sundown reached more than one million monthly listeners on Spotify. Its promotional photos had that artificial appearance characteristic of images generated by AI, and its members did not exist on any social network, but the group started with 550,000 monthly listeners after being recommended by the platform’s algorithm. After weeks of denying the accusations, those responsible admitted it was an “artistic provocation” created with artificial intelligence. His songs are still available on Spotify. The dead artists. However, in terms of impersonated artists, the case of deceased artists is more disturbing: numerous songs generated by AI began to appear in official profiles of deceased musicians. The page of Blaze Foley, country singer-songwriter murdered in 1989, received new songs. It also happened with Guy Clark, a Grammy winner who died in 2016, Sophie, an electronic artist who died in 2021, and Uncle Tupelo, Jeff Tweedy’s former band from Wilco. All of these tracks were uploaded by distributors without any verification and remained active for weeks before being detected. A systemic problem. Although Spotify is the visible head of this chaos, there is a real mess at many points on the diffusion scale. For example, distributors like DistroKid allow massive topic uploads without verifying the real identity of the artist. In the aforementioned September communication, Spotify announced new anti-spoofing policies and an anti-spam filter, but at the moment its effectiveness has not been proven. For now, the King Gizzard case raises a devastating question: after abandoning a platform, you do not abandon it completely. Maybe you’ll never do it. Header | Paul Hudson

There are people listening to Drake on Spotify 23 hours a day. Or maybe they are not human and it is a ‘royalty’ fraud

by

That Spotify pays artists quite poorly It’s no secret, but now they are being accused of something else: there are artists inflating their reproductions in order to reduce the payment for the rest since the distribution is proportional. The demand. They count in Ars Technica which is a class action lawsuit proposed by American rapper RBX. In it, the platform is accused of having allowed Drake to inflate his views. Currently, the rapper holds the record on the platform with 120,000 million views. Although Drake is at the center of the lawsuit, he goes further and claims that Spotify ignores “millions of fraudulent streams.” The signs. According to RBX, Spotify ignored at least 37 billion inauthentic streams of Drake’s music over the past three and a half years. To do this, they have analyzed listening patterns and have detected strange behaviors such as “months of significant increases” without the release of new music to explain those peaks. But the most suspicious of all is that certain accounts only played Drake’s music for 23 hours a day, something they consider “astonishing and irregular” and why Spotify had detected it. The payment system. Spotify does not pay artists for each play, but instead uses a proportional model. Every month a “pool” of money is created and each artist receives a proportional share based on the reproductions they have had in that period. Thus, if one month the sum amounts to 1 million euros, an artist who has achieved 1% of the total reproductions would take home 10,000 euros. It affects everyone. With the proportional system, if one artist inflates his figures, it negatively affects all the other artists competing for a piece of the pie. Although they have not given details of how they arrived at that figure, the lawsuit speaks of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” If the judge accepts the case, it could cover more than 100,000 copyright owners who use the platform. It’s not something new. Years ago we talked about the techniques to manipulate the charts on the platform. The most famous case was that of Justin Bieber, who In 2020 he asked his followers to loop his song ‘Yummy’ to take it to number one on the charts. But the normal thing is that it is done undercover, using fake accounts hidden under a VPN that hides the real location. In statements to Rolling Stonea Spotify representative has denied benefiting from fake plays and claims to invest in systems to protect artists and eliminate fake plays. Image | Wikipedia, Pexels In Xataka | The problem is no longer that Spotify has been filled with AI artists: it is that AI is “reviving” dead musicians

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.